Ron Paul: Is He a Racist?

Is that why you are trying to get the message out about the infallible Ron Paul? Do you want to be the head lemming to the polls that day to vote for
him or just be in the middle?

I wasn't aware that Ron Paul was infallible. In fact, the article I posted points out that he makes mistakes. Nobody but an unthinking moron can
believe that every one of his ideas is rote and that he can immediately make a Utopia the day he steps into office.

But lumping me in with the people that will vote again for Obama because he's willing to hand them the fruits of your labor is trolling. I have a
written history on this site of supporting freedom, liberty, and rights of all American citizens, even those like you who apparently ascribe to the
thought that anyone who desires those things is a lemming.

But thanks for your comments anyway.

/TOA

I really do not believe it is trolling. And I never lumped you in with Obama voters. The hype and spin machine for Paul has reached the point of
near deification, not unlike the supporters of Obama some few years back. You called them lemming for blindly cheerleading their candidate into
office when you are doing the SAME thing. The only difference is the message. Therefore, the lemming designation. After all, although he espouses
one thing now, who is to say Paul wouldn't be just as bad. I do applaud you for pointing out that the man has flaws. If you really believe that
voting for Paul or anyone for that matter will change anything, than good for you.

Originally posted by the owlbear
Is that why you are trying to get the message out about the infallible Ron Paul? Do you want to be the head lemming to the polls that day to vote for
him or just be in the middle?

Or, a shill in the mix since Dr. Paul probably wants this to go away.

Or, just an ordinary citizen wanting to "clear this up" when Dr. Paul couldn't do it himself.

I don't take offense or anything. And I, of course, don't think I'm being lemming-like in my support of Dr. Paul, but I am biased

. I unabashedly
will continue to call those supporting Obama as lemmings, mindless drones, kollectivists, or what have you because his record is clear that freedom
and liberty to him are just words and not a way of life. Anyone that can follow him can't see past their own entitlements.

The fact that the establishment calls Ron Paul a racist just shows they have zero counter-arguments to any of Paul's claims and thus zero
credibility. The racism lie worked in 2008, combined with media blackout, so when it comes to Ron Paul it is obvious what the media would rather have:
total silence as opposed to demonizing him by name. You notice how the media never tires of talking about anything Sarah Palin does or doesn't do,
but barely a mention of Ron Paul, and when he is mentioned it's, oh he must be racist because he's for American civil liberties.

The dinosaur media will soon be extinct, there is no way they can prop up their credibility any longer.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending from which angle you are looking, those of us who take the time to truly educate ourselves, can calmly discuss
these things, whether we be left, right, or middle. Again fortunately or unfortunately, there are those that have no true opinions, other than what
they hear on TV or radio, and when asked why they feel or think that way, they can give you no answer that follows any level of logic. Again, not
pointing this right or left, they exist on both sides. For some, the word compromise has become profanity, but without compromise our founding
fathers would have never put the documents together to form this country.

Originally posted by filosophia
The fact that the establishment calls Ron Paul a racist just shows they have zero counter-arguments to any of Paul's claims and thus zero
credibility. The racism lie worked in 2008, combined with media blackout, so when it comes to Ron Paul it is obvious what the media would rather have:
total silence as opposed to demonizing him by name. You notice how the media never tires of talking about anything Sarah Palin does or doesn't do,
but barely a mention of Ron Paul, and when he is mentioned it's, oh he must be racist because he's for American civil liberties.

The dinosaur media will soon be extinct, there is no way they can prop up their credibility any longer.

I too have noticed the lack of coverage of Ron Paul, and the obnoxious, over the top coverage of Palin. You rarely see coverage of his speeches or
comments, and even I have to admit, that as close as I follow politics, I do not know a great deal about him. I have based many of my thoughts on
him, based on a libertarian that I sometimes catch on the radio here in KC. There are portions of a true libertarian platform that I could stand
fully behind, some of the others, I have my serious doubts about.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I wish you luck and applaud your efforts to cut this off before it really gets started, but some people believe anything. If they truly believe that
Ron Paul is a racist based on the fact that he thinks people should be responsible for themselves instead of asking for hand outs from Government,
than they deserve to be stupid. I just hope come election day they stay stupid and stay home.

Laziness and sloth are not a race. That is what the government handouts have created generations of. I think the entire system will soon collapse
under it's own weight. It is overgrown and rotted from within and akin to an untended pine forest, a good fire that levels it out and allows the
seed pods to open and start again we need something akin to that in government. (I was hoping the liberty dollars* would take care of that but they
were shut down)

If you are paid in Liberty dollars you are not taxed on them any more than trading a pinch of gold dust for a bag of groceries. Without taxes the
beast starves.

I find it very difficult to believe that for a block of time that spanned years, Ron Paul had absolutely no clue what was being said in his name. Are
we to believe that no friend, staffer, fellow politician ever called him out on this or worse never brought these news letters up to agree with Ron
Paul? Sorry, but he can't claim ignorance here.

I find it ironic that here is concrete proof of a wrong doing, those that are venomously hateful toward our President and blather on about getting a
date wrong, simply shrug their shoulders and say oh well it's ok he didn't write it.

So yes, I believe he is or was racist. I think at this point it would be better for him to admit it and say his views have changed than to treat the
american public like we're gullible.

How does Ron Paul feel about states rights interms of racial segregation and marriage?

Can the state of Texas establish their own form of racial segregation?
Can Kentucky ban interracial couples from getting married?

He just needs to clarify his position here, and then I'll clarify whether he is a racist or not.

I too have questions about these things, especially after hearing his son say the the civil rights amendment should be repealed. And to further this
question, what happens to an interracial couple that is legally married in another state, and moves to Kentucky? This is still America, and we are
all Americans.

First of all, "racist" is an adjective, not a noun. Saying that someone is "a" racist is superfluous.

Putting my grammatical Nazism aside, from what I know of Ron Paul he is not prejudiced in any way. Accusing someone of racism, especially a political
figure, is a fast-tracked way to splinter their reputation in the eyes of the populace.

Originally posted by neo96
last time i checked interracial marriages in kentucky wasnt a problem

Kentucky was rhetorical, a hypothetical example.

Yes, that was because of the Federal ruling of loving vs virginia, that forced some of the states, most of whom were Southern, to accept interracial
marriages as constitutional and legal. Racial segregation was also ended by forced over many states by the federal government. It's not a problem
because these issues were declared federal and constitutional, not state.

Libertarians like Barry Goldwater back int he 60's argued for states rights in the case of deciding racial segregation and interracial
marriages. Many libertarians during those days believed these issues were up to the state.

Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
First of all, "racist" is an adjective, not a noun. Saying that someone is "a" racist is superfluous.

Putting my grammatical Nazism aside, from what I know of Ron Paul he is not prejudiced in any way. Accusing someone of racism, especially a political
figure, is a fast-tracked way to splinter their reputation in the eyes of the populace.

Deep I hope this is not the case for Dr. Paul, while I do not agree whole heartedly with him, to seem him labeled racist on a public stage, if he is
not, is in no way right.

How does Ron Paul feel about states rights interms of racial segregation and marriage?

Ron Paul's Position: Against Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Against Segregation Laws

Ron Paul announced yesterday that he would have voted against the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that he would voted against state laws
requiring segregation of the races. Consistent with his libertarian principles, Paul elevates property rights to a preferred position under the
Constitution. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stirred a controversy yesterday. According to Michael O'Brien of The Hill, Paul says he would
have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In an interview with Chris Mathews of MSNBC, Paul disclosed that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended racial
discrimination in private businesses.

Under that law businesses that are open to the public may not discriminate against their customers on the basis of race, and businesses whatever
their nature may not engage in employment discrimination.

Paul claims and no doubt believes that this does not make him a "racist" and he is quick to claim victimhood if anyone criticizes his position –
"You are calling me a racist!" is his ready response to those who disagree with him. He maintains that he is not in favor of racial discrimination –
he is instead merely in favor of property rights.

He believes that under the Constitution the government may not interfere with the way that a person or a corporation operates its business even if it
is engaging in acts of racial discrimination.

Just about a year after his son Rand Paul stepped in it when he told Rachel Maddow he was opposed to provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rep.
Ron Paul (R-TX) told Chris Matthews Friday he wouldn't have voted for the law in the first place had he been in Congress at the time.

In other words, we don't want your business here in the south, deal with your own kind. I guess I come from a different place, having been raised in
what was a border state. Both of my parents still remember segregation, and while my father sees no problem with it, my mother does. We moved out of
KC before I started kindergarten, to the suburbs, there I didn't encounter a black peer until my sophemore year in HS. I have friends of all races,
the mother of my children is half Mexican, making my children 1/4. Yeah lets leave this up to the states, if that is the case, I will work my ass off
to move black families out of the deep south, yeah I lived there for 6 years, and while illegal, hardcore discrimination does exist.

I hope not, Im voting for him and Im black! That would be an unpleasant suprise lol.

No, in all reality he is not racist at all. People are just waaaaaaaaaaaaay too over sensitive about race. If we could see past it we could see that
it is about socioeconomic class, not race, sex, age or creed

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.